4.19.8 C editorial change
 

4.19.8 C now says ...one official rules a block while the other official rules a charge.... The word rules has been substituted for the word calls. Can anybody comment on the significance of this?

When we make a "call" we are describing the illegal action we saw. But when we make a "ruling" it is more final...like a decree. It seems to me the Rules Committee is trying to create a scenario where both officials are sure of their calls & their decisions are final.

They did it just to fock with jar.

Your one man crusade is perhaps making a difference! ;)

This change makes it even harder to imagine that a signal dictates ones to do anything.

For once, an "editorial" change is just that.

I disagree. I think makes it more clear that the signal was sufficient to create the conflict. Now, the ruling has come before the signal. You blow the whistle because you've ruled it to be a foul of some sort. If one blows it for a charge and one for a block, you've got a blarge. The only thing that happens after that is a signal and a report, not a ruling.

A rare occasion I see eye to eye with Camron

That's what I always said. The ruling comes before the signal. So those of you who feel obligated to report both fouls now must report them whether preliminary signals are made or not.

Really? I could have sworn that you advocated that there point of no return was when it was reported....and that it shouldn't even be possible to get to the situation since the officials would talk about the call before reporting and could always resolve it to one call.

Don't worry, you'll see eye to eye with me more often in time. :D

And if it really is rare, I'm not wrong that often, so that must mean you are???

As far as I'm concerned there never was a point of no return. If I report my call and then see you start to report yours after, we can still get together and come up with one call. Show me something which says we can't.

Already have, dozens of times.

As an interloper to the board from another forum, I generally enjoy this debate but it doesn't seem as if anyone is engaging JAR's point. Up until now, as I understood the blarge case play, making conflicting signals was considered "calling" each violation on the play and was the point of no return. Are you now saying that making conflicting signals is considered "ruling" each violation on the play? This seems a little specious simply because as you said above ruling comes before signaling.

In other words, here's how I saw the double whistle before working properly based on what I learned here:
You blow your whistle because you've ruled a charge and I blow mine because I've ruled a block. We both put our hands in the air and make eye contact and I defer to you based on coverage. You call a charge and I don't call anything.

But that's obviously not how you would word it?

I think the only practical way to handle it is to base it on the signal. I have no idea why they changed to word from one that has some amount of ambiguity to another that has just as much ambiguity. It doesn't clarify anything. If they had changed the word to signals or indicated, it would have been good, but as it is, there hasn't been an improvement in the wording unless they now define "rule".

We aren't engaging the point because it's been done before, a lot of time, and nothing is really new here. JAR has long argued that the case play really doesn't mean what every assigner, association, and clinic has taught that it means. If the NFHS didn't want it to mean what everyone says it means, they'vd had ample opportunity to make significant changes, or define "calls" (or "rules" now), and they haven't done it.

The wisdom of the case play is up for debate, but it's meaning really is not.

I know here, with our association, any foul on a play going to the basket, with a double whistle, the lead takes it. Trail only comes up with fist, and makes no other preliminary signal. This is covered in pregame. Any double whistle belongs to the lead.

In an ideal world....

For the record, if y'all say that "everybody" you deal with wants it called this way, no doubt that is what you should do. But, conversely, nobody I deal with has told me this, so it is left to my own interpretation. But, I think most would agree that it is at least difficult to reach this conclusion strictly from reading the case play, before or after the revision.

Is this in the NFHS book?

I know that within IAABO, Peter Webb is on a crusade to make it clear that officials make rulings, not calls. I sent him an email recently and in his reply, he edited my original email, crossing out "call" and typing "ruling" in red. So it's possible that IAABO may make changes in the case book before sending it out to members.

Additionally, the IAABO pre-season video is now officially titled "You Make the Ruling".

I personally don't care which wording is used. I think some people think that a "call" is a reaction, while a "ruling" is a reasoned decision. I don't share that view, but as I said, I don't care which way people say it.

No, not really. Frankly, I don't see any other reasonable meaning for it, regardless of whether they use "calls" or "rules." To me, the options are:

1. It means what we say it means (and you're the only one I've ever seen make the opposing argument).
2. It only applies when both officials are being obstinant or oblivious to one another.

Okay, say majority rules. It does mean what you say it means. Are you telling me that you think it is logical to conclude from reading this play that signals should be binding, or are you just saying that this is the lesser of the evils and that's the way it has to be.

I accept it if you say " 'Cause my boss says so."

I will never accept it if you say this is a logical conclusion after reading the case, before or after.

It's obviously not the way it HAS to be, because NCAA-W doesn't do it that way. But NCAA-M, NFHS, and I believe the NBA have chosen for it to be that way.

I can't imagine a more likely intent behind that case play. If that's their intent, it's perhaps not the best way to put it, but it seems to work for 99% of the officials I know.

As it relates to the original post, it seems that IAABO is trying to get officials to change the verbiage being used on and off the court. They are putting emphasis on saying free throw instead of foul shot, free throw lane and not paint, division line and not midcourt, etc. "Ruling" vs "call" was also on this list. This is what was relayed to us from our board's representative at the spring IAABO meeting.

Okay, say I accept that that is their intent. And if it their intent, that is what we have to do. What is the intent of 4.19.11? What's the difference?

I've had the same partner for almost 10 years and this is the way we do it every game. The trail defers to the lead on a double whistle.

That's the way everyone pre-games it. Just doens't always come to fruition.

And around these parts, you work with whomever is assigned to work.

huh?

"What's the difference?" Really, what makes these even remotely related?

They are both case plays related to fouls. For the 4.19.8 play it is a stretch, in my opinion, to decide what the intent is. (when do you have to report both fouls?) The 4.19.11 case play is plain and simple. It says 2 fouls occur, and you penalize both. Not if you call it, and not if you rule it, just penalize two fouls, period. My question is why is the first (murky) case play undeniable and the second, clear cut play almost totally ignored.

Hmmm, this sounds vaguely familiar. Almost as if someone else had posted something very similar, rather recently. Who might have mentioned this. . . ?

:D